Following a negative decision, confirmed by the Civil Court, the applicant appealed further and invoked that the judges did not properly take into account  the environmental disaster affecting the area of the Niger Delta and did not grant him  humanitarian protection, based on the aforementioned ecological situation.

The Court of Cassation acknowledge that the judges of the Civil Court thoroughly documented the environmental disaster ongoing in the Niger Delta, caused by the indiscriminate exploitation of the territory by oil companies, as well as the interethnic and politically motivated conflicts in the area. However, recalling international sources, the Civil Court stressed that the Nigerian Government took appropriate steps, including bringing a lawsuit before a federal court in the United States. Although recalling the extreme poverty of the population in the affected area, not profiting from the natural resources at its disposal, exploited by others, and the insecurity linked to kidnappings and aggressions, the Civil Court concluded that such situation did not reach the level of indiscriminate violence, in the context of an armed conflict or of an equivalent situation, required for the applicant to be eligible for subsidiary protection. The Court did not consider the environmental situation in light of the residual humanitarian protection.

The Court of Cassation recalled the case Ioane Teitiota v New Zealand, the UN Human Rights Committee on 24 October 2019 (case number 2728/2016), concerning a complaint by Ioane Teitiota, a citizen of Kiribati islands, seeking asylum in New Zealand, from the effects of climate change on himself and his family. In such complaint, the applicant compared his situation to the one of migrants fleeing conflicts, given that the effects of climate change had an impact on the inhabitants' daily lives, causing shortage of potable water and social tensions. Although the UN Human Rights Committee rejected that particular case, it stressed that States have the obligation to ensure and guarantee the right to life of individuals. In particular, the Court of Cassation recalled the wording of the Committee, stressing that “the obligation of States parties to respect and ensure the right to life extends to reasonably foreseeable threats and life-threatening situations that can result in loss of life. [...] environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to enjoy the right to life” and that “environmental degradation can compromise effective enjoyment of the right to life, and that severe environmental degradation can adversely affect an individual's well-being and lead to a violation of the right to life”. The Committee further stressed that the principle of non-refoulement is applicable to every dangerous situation, in light of the fact that the right to life includes the right to enjoy a life with dignity and freedom from each act or omission, which might lead to the death of an individual. Environmental disasters might compromise the effective enjoyment of an individual's rights, whenever the local government is not able or willing to guarantee that all individuals can access natural resources, such as lands and drinkable water, compromising as such the enjoyment of the right to life.

In light of the above conclusions of the Committee, the Court of Cassation stated that, whenever a judge finds that, in a given area, there is a situation which could potentially lead to a natural disaster, or a context where natural resources are deemed to be severely compromised, excluding the population from freely enjoying them, the widespread riskiness of the situation in the country should be evaluated referring to the particular risk posed on the right to life and to right to enjoy a life with dignity, which could be impacted by climate change or environmental disasters. The Court of Cassation further stated that, the threat to life, which is relevant for the assessment of international protection, does not necessarily descend from an armed conflict. Such threat might also depend on socio-environmental conditions, which can be attributed to the actions of human beings, if the results of such behaviour pose a concrete risk to the survival of an individual and his or her family members. The Court concluded that wars or armed conflict are only the most striking manifestation of mankind's self-destructive action. However, those are not the only behaviours that might compromise an individual's right to enjoy a life with dignity. There is a violation of such right, whenever the context is so degraded that an individual might be exposed to the risk of having his or her fundamental rights to life, freedom and self-determination cancelled or reduced below the threshold of the “inescapable nucleus constitutive of the statute of personal dignity”. The latter concept constitutes the essential level, below which the right enjoy a life with dignity and the right to life as a consequence, are not guaranteed.

The Court of Cassation concluded that judges in Civil Courts should apply that standard not only when dealing with situation of armed conflicts, but also when dealing with situations of social, environmental or climate degradation, as well as context where natural resources are exploited, to the extent that one's survival is at risk.

In the given case, although the judges recognised a situation of environmental disaster, they considered the risk only in respect to the existence or non existence of an armed conflict, without considering the risk of compromising the threshold of the “inescapable nucleus constitutive of the statute of personal dignity”, linked to the recognized situation of natural disaster.

The Court of Cassation, therefore, referred the case back to the regional court for re-examination in a different formation, which had to take in consideration a specific principle of law.